Relates to a plea of guilty

Provisions of this Measure This measure would amend sections 220.10(5) and 220.30(3) of the Criminal Procedure Law to permit a plea of guilty, notwithstanding any current statutory restriction on such a plea otherwise, when both the prosecutor and the court are satisfied that, in the interest of justice, the nature and circumstances of the criminal conduct, the available evidence and the history and character of the defendant justify such plea.

Section one of this measure would amend section 220.10, which sets forth the rules governing when a defendant charged in a single indictment may take a guilty plea. Subdivision (5) of section 220.10 now sets forth restrictions on the taking of such a plea depending upon the charges that the defendant faces, e.g., where defendant is charged with a certain B felony, then any guilty plea he or she enters to the indictment must include a plea of guilty to a felony. The amendment to section 220.10(5) provided in this measure would permit defendant, with permission of the court and consent of the people, to enter a guilty plea to a charge not now permitted by section 220.10 under circumstances where, based on the nature and circumstances of the criminal conduct, the available evidence and the defendant's history and character{2}, both court and prosecutor believe such guilty plea would be in the interest of justice.

Section two of this measure makes a comparable amendment to section 220.30(3)(b), which sets forth the rules governing when a defendant charged in multiple indictments may take a single guilty plea in satisfaction of those indictments.

Note that neither of the foregoing changes will alter the law with respect to a guilty plea when capital murder is charged or in the case of a juvenile offender.

Justification Prior to the Rockefeller Drug Laws, a plea of guilty to less than an entire indictment was permitted with the consent of the court and prosecutor. There were no other statutory restrictions on a guilty plea to a lesser offense.

When proposing his Drug Laws in the early 1970s, Governor Rockefeller wanted to bar a defendant from evading the higher penalties called for thereunder by pleading guilty to a lesser crime, even where the court and prosecutor consented; and, so, the laws governing the taking of guilty pleas were amended accordingly. Since then, the Legislature has applied similar restrictions upon pleas to broader classes of felonies than those originally envisioned as part of the Drug Law enactment.

The Sentencing Commission now recognizes that information such as might justify resolution of a criminal charge by guilty plea may not often be complete on the day that the indictment is filed; and, yet,

that is the day on which the plea restrictions now set forth in sections 220.10 and 220.30 attach. Experience has shown that the nature and weight of the evidence against defendant may change over time and, as a result, the prosecutor's belief as to the proper level of a defendant's culpability, particularly among his or her accomplices, may change as well. The result: despite ongoing efforts by prosecutors, courts and criminal defendants and their counsel to do justice within the current statutory framework, the arbitrary and artificial restrictions on guilty pleas dictated by that framework may force expensive and unnecessary trials, which can be contrary to the interests of the prosecution, the defendant and the community.

Accordingly, the Commission urges the enactment of this measure. While keeping the current plea restrictions intact, the measure adds an escape valve to permit the doing of justice in especially compelling cases. It does this by supplying a mechanism for overriding the restrictions on guilty pleas where, upon consideration of the nature and circumstances of the criminal conduct, the available evidence and the defendant's history and character, both the court and the people agree that bypassing the restrictions is warranted in the interest of justice. This mechanism will promote fairness for individual defendants, spare communities the need to expend precious resources on unnecessary trials and, overall, further the administration of criminal justice{3}.

This measure would take effect immediately.

Legislative History: None. New proposal.

{1}The New York State Sentencing Commission, was established by the Chief Judge of the State in 2010. It is co-chaired by the Hon. Barry Kamins, Administrative Judge for the NYC Criminal Court and for criminal matters in the Second Judicial District, and Hon. Cyrus Vance, Jr., New York County District Attorney. Its members include a broad spectrum of representatives from the criminal justice community, including criminal defense attorneys, judges, policymakers, academics and victim advocates The Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the Chief Judge and is charged with comprehensively evaluating sentencing laws and practices and recommending reforms that will improve the quality and effectiveness of statewide sentencing policy.

{2}The amendment requires that all of these factors be placed upon the record, although the failure to do so would not be grounds for the defendant to have his or her plea set aside.

{3}Note that there is precedent for this measure under current law wherein, under the Vehicle and Traffic Law, the people and the court may consent to a defendant's guilty plea to a violation of the DWI laws albeit such plea is otherwise barred by statute, See VTL 1192(10)